OK - we need to send the heraldry police to the next Trek convention to see if they are merchandising Picard arms… 
And if they think there’s a market for them, maybe we can design arms for the whole primary caste members of all shows! ooo… except Kirk - never liked him much… and since he got demoted from Admiral, well - he just doesn’t rate… 
Michael F. McCartney;89849 wrote:
Looked at a book on heraldry? —maybe for the same four seconds that the book appeared on screen. For a show that prided itself on scientific accuracy (or at least plausibility) and continuity—to the extent of creating at least one alien language (Klingon) with its own vocabulary & syntax, this "borrowing" falls far short of the bar (or even the bar sinister).
Don’t be too hard on them.
This particular prop was not actually made for the movie. It was made for a TV episode. Which means the prop guys probably had about a week from the time the script was given them, to the time the album actually had to be ready for the screen. Possibly less, given that creative types have a tendency to send things back for obscure reasons.
The movie people, who actually had months to plan, couldn’t really change it much because it was prominently featured in several episodes.
Nick
I saw "Snow White & the Huntsman" today. Very good, entertaining film and a darker, grown-up take on the Snow White tale. There is a lot of heraldry in the film and it is used very well. Any heraldry enthusiast will love it!!!
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/bg/Stewart+Snow+White+goes+battle+HX-zdI7OrIWl.jpg
I saw the movie today as well. While I didnt care for the movie the heraldry was wonderful to see. There was so much of it. I loved some of the arms they displayed. I was wondering if one of the depicted above is "legal" or does it break the tincture rule: Azure a bend gules overall an oak tree Or.
I think you called it right Jesse, that bend Gules on the Azure field definitely breaches the tincture rule, however, there are numerous examples of tincture violations in medieval heraldry so it’s not a huge issue so long as one seeks not to emulate such a mistake in future designs. 
I didn’t mean ABATEMENT, I meant to say AUGMENTATION.
Abatements would never be used by an armiger on purpose. Nor is bastardy a dishonor or considered an abatement, debruising for bastardy is an AUGMENTATION.
(INB4 Joe McMillan saw my mistake and went to DEFCON1 on this thread, hehe)
Think of the field as tierced (i.e. cut in three parts, in this case essentially bendy of three)—thus no tincture violation. And the golden tree will stand out quite nicely.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;93818 wrote:
I didn’t mean ABATEMENT, I meant to say AUGMENTATION.
Abatements would never be used by an armiger on purpose. Nor is bastardy a dishonor or considered an abatement, debruising for bastardy is an AUGMENTATION.
(INB4 Joe McMillan saw my mistake and went to DEFCON1 on this thread, hehe)
Too late. Differencing for bastardy is just a brisure, neither an augmentation nor an abatement.
Michael F. McCartney;93862 wrote:
Think of the field as tierced (i.e. cut in three parts, in this case essentially bendy of three)—thus no tincture violation. And the golden tree will stand out quite nicely.
Cop-out.
But would agree that it’s absurd that the rule (in English-speaking countries, anyway) permits bendy of four Azure and Gules but not Azure a bend Gules or Azure two bendlets Gules.
My preference would be the more straightforward blazon, "Azure a bend Gules over all an uprooted [oak?] tree Gold." (Okay, well "eradicated" for those who insist.)
Joseph McMillan;93866 wrote:
Cop-out.
But would agree that it’s absurd that the rule (in English-speaking countries, anyway) permits bendy of four Azure and Gules but not Azure a bend Gules or Azure two bendlets Gules.
I was under the impression that actually saying "bendy of four" was redundant and just to say bendy always assumed of four (unless furhter specified). Is this correct Joe? I personally am glad that bendy is always of even numbers as it just takes care of a mass of potential confusion otherwise. 
Michael F. McCartney;93862 wrote:
Think of the field as tierced (i.e. cut in three parts, in this case essentially bendy of three)—thus no tincture violation. And the golden tree will stand out quite nicely.
Michael, do you think this solution would pass English, Irish, Scottish heraldic muster? I’m pretty sure (according to previous statements by Ronny Anderson on the Scandinavian forums) that it would be rejected by most Scandinavian authorities. Just trying to get a sense for who we can bamboozle with this one (certainly not Joe ).
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;93868 wrote:
I was under the impression that actually saying "bendy of four" was redundant and just to say bendy always assumed of four (unless furhter specified). Is this correct Joe?
I actually have no idea. Without reflection I would have thought the default was six, but in practice I always specify the number so have never seriously examined the matter.
On the "always even," John Gibbon wrote in Introductio ad latinam blasoniam in the late 1600s that "Foreigners make no matter, neither in Paly, Barry, nor Bendy, whether the pieces be even or odd, provided they be of an equal latitude." I don’t know whether Gibbon was correct, but certainly the principle that bendy, barry, or paly must consist of an even number of stripes is artificial and rather silly. If the purpose of the tincture rule is to ensure contrast and visibility, are we to believe that a field of six red and blue stripes is distinguishable on the battlefield, but one of five or seven is not?
Joseph McMillan;93874 wrote:
I don’t know whether Gibbon was correct, but certainly the principle that bendy, barry, or paly must consist of an even number of stripes is artificial and rather silly. If the purpose of the tincture rule is to ensure contrast and visibility, are we to believe that a field of six red and blue stripes is distinguishable on the battlefield, but one of five or seven is not?
Ah… But the issue is one of allowing heraldic writers to make others feel small.
Moving away from the tinctures, six equal width vertical stripes Argent and Gules is Paly Argent and Gules whereas five of same would be Argent two pallets Gules and seven Argent three pallets Gules.
This allows an heraldic expert to expound on the *obvious* difference and the heraldic examiner to up/down grade their pupil. To the practical heraldist trying to make out a weathered carving or a crumbling seal it is paper heraldry at its worst, except maybe the difference between a fess dancetty and a fess vivre.
James
James Dempster;93876 wrote:
Ah… But the issue is one of allowing heraldic writers to make others feel small.
Moving away from the tinctures, six equal width vertical stripes Argent and Gules is Paly Argent and Gules whereas five of same would be Argent two pallets Gules and seven Argent three pallets Gules.
This allows an heraldic expert to expound on the *obvious* difference and the heraldic examiner to up/down grade their pupil. To the practical heraldist trying to make out a weathered carving or a crumbling seal it is paper heraldry at its worst, except maybe the difference between a fess dancetty and a fess vivre.
James
James, have you read Oswald Barron on this general issue? See http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Barron0402.htm. It’s a hoot.
I have read and enjoyed Barron on this and other related subjects. Sometimes he seems to complain too much, but in the main he is sound.
